Resolution - #88-190 - 10/06/1988

Home

We also ~_.,.~¢, ~ P~,a'P. t~he EIS compares impacts of the expansion to a previous ~'.c.~iS'~ ion typical of 1986 rather than c.omparing the impacts to a seve2?c]y curtailed operation as presently exists. Thus, many impacts a~;e d.~_4~ermined 5n the EIS to be no greater than presently exist when~ i~, ta~t_, a four to five fold increase in activity would be experienc~d ovc-~? 1988 levels. The ElS throughout, bases its evaluation on a time frame which assumes operation~ would be completed in approximately two and a half years or 1991. However, Wa~te Management Minnesota, Inc. in their CUP applica- tion with the city of Ramsey is indicating an operating life of approxima~e]y five years. Thus, the duration of impacts to the Community is likely to be much longer than that portrayed through the EIS. Thi~ cas oe resolved, however, by placing an operational time limit on the i?roposed expansion through the permitting processes. Underlying the entire landfill siting and expansion processes, there appears to be ~,>me perception at the Metropolitan Council (MC), the County and ~pCh that the Community and residents are simply suffering from the NI~}~Y ~yndrome. This is not so. The City and its residents have done tt, e[-~ share and more to accomodate the region's waste. There simply h~:~ to come a time when, like it or not, a landfill must close in c:o~j~ction with its permitted life. Ne__ed___f°r_ t ~.' .'~ j ~.c ,:. The EIS largoi? depends on the Certificate of Need (CON) application/ analysis ¢'.o~d~]ctted in 1986. That process portrayed a near crisis situation wi?.i~ ~3espect to the region's landfill capacity and specifi- cally the need for capacity between 1987-1990. The CON process con- cluded that ~)(easib2_e or prudent alternatives to expansion exist to serve the reqJ~'s needs during that time period. The CON was r;o.i ;~m~ed (by MC) in January of 1988 at the same capacity as was applied fq'~' by W~4I in ].986 to serve 1987 through 1990 (635 acre- feet) . We now are ]]~alt-[ng the end of 1988, still discussing the same capacity even though tw~ years have elapsed in that "window of need" (1987- 1990) until ij~ RDF facilities and Resource Recovery Systems were to come on ] in~:~ knoka County's Elk River facility is anticipated to be on line by ~i¢'!.~.u989 -- approximately six months after the expansion of Anoka Landf;.~] %/ould be initiated. Since the CON process, an MC staff report indic,~t~ that there is potential capacity within the existing system to i!~'~..J~ie the Metro Area needs for the next 18 years (Landfill i'..~]~,-,~ t.y Evaluation, Caswell and Rafferty, May, 1987) .